Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV32198, Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32198    Hearing Date: August 31, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery is DENIED.

On 8/31/2021, Plaintiff Israel Hernandez Galan aka Israel Alfonso Hernandez Galan and Edelba Romero Arellano aka Edelba Romero (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Ted Jones Ford, Inc. dba Ken Grody Ford Corporations and Ford Motor Company, alleging: (1) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty; (3) violation of Beverly Act section 1793.2; and (4) negligent repair.

            Now, Plaintiffs move to compel further responses from Defendant to RFP Nos. 16, 22, 24, 34, and 36. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions.

Discussion

Here, the RFPs at issue for this motion include requests seeking Ford’s warranty claims policy and procedure manuals from 2017 to the present (RFP 16), all training materials regarding the handling of consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase in California since 2020 (RFP 22), all scripts and flow charts that Ford uses in handling California consumer requests for a vehicle repurchase or replacement since 2020 (RFP 24), documents showing Ford’s vehicle symptom codes for the same year, make, and model as Plaintiffs’ vehicle (RFP 34), and documents showing customer complaint codes from 2019 to present (RFP 36).

            In opposition, Defendant argues that it has properly responded and objected to the relevant RFPs.

As for RFP No. 16, Defendant argues that it agreed to produce the warranty claims policy and procedure manuals—subject to entry of a protective order—for the year 2020, when Plaintiffs requested a repurchase. Defendant only objected to producing this manual for the years 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022 because those manuals have nothing to do with Plaintiffs, their repurchase request, or their claims in this case. The Court agrees that Defendant’s response to RFP No. 16 is sufficient.

As for RFP No. 22, Defendant agreed to produce its Warranty Policy and Procedure Manual, policies and procedures for Ford’s Customer Relationship Center (CRC), which handles communications from customers to Ford regarding vehicle concerns, and its RAV Policy & Procedure Manual, which contains policy or procedure information about refunds and replacement vehicles, for 2020. Defendant objected to producing other training materials because “Plaintiffs’ claims are not about the training Ford’s customer service agents receive, and therefore other “training” documents are irrelevant.” (Opp., 2:2-4.) The Court agrees that Defendant’s response to RFP No. 22 is sufficient.

As for RFP No. 24, while Defendant initially objected to this Request, after the parties’ meet and confer, Defendant served a supplemental response, agreeing to produce Ford’s 2020 policies and procedures for Ford’s CRC, which contain the flowcharts Plaintiffs requested, subject to a protective order. As it relates to scripts, Defendant’s supplemental response advised that Ford conducted a reasonable and diligent search, but did not locate responsive scripts. Defendant also objected to producing CRC policies and procedures for other years “because they are plainly not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, given that they sought a repurchase in 2020.” (Opp., 2: 13-14.) The Court agrees that Defendant’s response to RFP No. 24 is sufficient. Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence which could show that Defendant’s contention that it cannot locate responsive scripts is false, and the Court agrees that only CRC policies and procedures for the repurchase year are relevant.

As for RFP Nos. 34 and 36, while Defendant also initially objected to these Requests, after the parties’ meet and confer, Defendant served a supplemental responses identifying responsive documents pertaining to Plaintiffs’ 2014 Ford Focus vehicle, including records from Ford’s: (1) Global Contact Center Technology (GCCT) application, which contains communications between Ford and the individual(s) calling Ford through its call center; (2) Global Common Quality Indicator System ((GCQIS), which contain vehicle symptom codes; and (3) Global System for Analytics and Reporting (GSAR) which contains warranty claim history information, including customer complaint codes, and warranty repairs made by the repairing dealership. Defendant objected to producing all symptom codes applicable to 2014 Focus vehicles as a whole, “because those codes are not specific (or even related) to the repairs made to the subject vehicle, or Plaintiffs’ claims in this case.” (Opp., 2: 26-27.) The Court agrees that Defendant’s responses to RFPs Nos. 34 and 36 are sufficient.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery is denied.

 It is so ordered.

Dated:  August    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.